Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

[The Don]

I think people have a tendency to place on "checks and balances" things it wasn't meant to. The Federalist papers talk about the distribution of legislative, judicial, and executive power. It isnt checks and balances over garden variety criminality.

IMO this would be an example of the Executive branch having, in effect, no check on its power because the Legislative are asleep at the wheel (due to partisanship) and the Judicial have been carefully picked to ensure that any issues blocked by lower courts over which the Executive have less power can be reversed by SCOTUS.

In any case, if Russian collusion is demonstrated, it's not common or garden variety criminality IMO.

 

[BobTheCoward]

IMO this would be an example of the Executive branch having, in effect, no check on its power because the Legislative are asleep at the wheel (due to partisanship) and the Judicial have been carefully picked to ensure that any issues blocked by lower courts over which the Executive have less power can be reversed by SCOTUS.

In any case, if Russian collusion is demonstrated, it's not common or garden variety criminality IMO.

It doesnt matter if the executive runs rampant with executive power. Federalist 51 is our source for the term and the point was

Madison's key point is that the members of each department should have as little dependence as possible on the members of the other departments, and to stay independent, their own department must not encroach on the others. To secure these ends, Madison suggests that "the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department" is to enable each department (or the leader of the department) to fend off attempts to encroach upon the government of each other's departments.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._51

 

[Minoosh]

It puts a lot of pressure on Trump to pardon these guys. If he pardons them, then everyone else will be assured that Trump will pardon them as well. Most, if not all, will stay silent. If he doesn't pardon someone, then they know that loyalty is a one-way street and many will talk.

However, if Trump pardons people, the political fallout will be substantial. Republicans probably will cry foul but take no action to penalize Trump. Hopefully, the public will vote them out of office because of it.

Grab the popcorn.

The people would be pardoned. But IMO Trump would be obstructing justice, or interfering with the investigation.

 

[The Don]

It doesnt matter if the executive runs rampant with executive power. Federalist 51 is our source for the term

And they are not independent of each other when one (the Judiciary - or at least the pinnacle of it) is appointed by, and aligned to, the Executive and where the Legislative is similarly aligned and subservient.

Your mileage clearly varies but as a host of threads shows (and to paraphrase Sir Tom Jones) - that's not unusual .

 

[The Don]

The people would be pardoned. But IMO Trump would be obstructing justice, or interfering with the investigation.

Even if he was, would it matter ?

His own AG has demonstrated that there is no penalty for perjury, his own attempts to interfere in and frustrate the investigation haven't been criticised in any meaningful way by the GOP.

Obstructing justice and/or interfering with the investigation is just yet another facet of being "modern Presidential"

 

[thaiboxerken]

The people would be pardoned. But IMO Trump would be obstructing justice, or interfering with the investigation.

Trump has already admitted to obstructing and interfering with the investigation, on national television. Will there be enough of a public outcry to get Republicans to take action? I doubt it. The only way they will do so is if they feel politically vulnerable if they don't take action.

 

[SezMe]

You got a link for that? Equal time, yes, but I didn't think it was free air time.

A link for my suggestion? Surely you jest. My link is ... wait for it ... ME!

 

[SezMe]

It's quite rude to butt into other people's contracts. There's actually a legal term for that: tortious interference.

So sue me. Or, at the very least, report me for being a buttinski by citing the relevant section(s) of the MA, namely, those that state that ISF members shall not be "rude" to one another.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A better defense would be "No proof that Trump knew about this when it happened" rather then try to deny that anything happened.

Hey he has denied known his own foreign policy adviser. OF course given his grasp of foreign policy that does check out.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm positive I'm not the only one that noticed the free $20 in that story was the equivalent of a free lunch. Everyone in business knows there is no free lunch, or they should know it.

Sure there is, look how often Trump gets the equivalent of that with his contractors. Its called dine and dash. That is a free lunch and the goal of the reforms of the tax code.

 

[SezMe]

He's having lunch with Jeff Sessions today. Will those who lost their minds over former President Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch comment on the impropriety of Trump meeting with Sessions today?

No.

Next question.

 

[SezMe]

Assuming for the sake of discussion that an investigation is warranted ...:

Also, I do not believe Mueller is objective at all.

... who would be objective?

 

[BobTheCoward]

And they are not independent of each other when one (the Judiciary - or at least the pinnacle of it) is appointed by, and aligned to, the Executive and where the Legislative is similarly aligned and subservient.

Your mileage clearly varies but as a host of threads shows (and to paraphrase Sir Tom Jones) - that's not unusual .

If Madison didn't define his own term well or contradicted himself take it up with him. But you should avoid adopting the term, using it in the same context, and misuse it.

 

[TofuFighter]

So far this morning... (apologies if duplicated)

 

[Tero]

When there were 3 GOP candidates left, Russia picked Trump to collude with.

 

[johnny karate]

So far this morning... (apologies if duplicated)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1275&pictureid=11561[/qimg]

I wonder if Trump realizes we have him on record naming Papadopoulos as one of his five foreign policy advisers...

 

[varwoche]

So far this morning... (apologies if duplicated)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1275&pictureid=11561[/qimg]

"...named George"

LO f'in L

 

[NoahFence]

So far this morning... (apologies if duplicated)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1275&pictureid=11561[/qimg]

Wow, he's real loyal huh? There's no way that could come back to bite him in the ass.

 

[johnny karate]

"Very few people" on the campaign knew Papadopoulos....

And here they all are!

(The guy no one knows is two seats to the left of Sessions.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

"Very few people" on the campaign knew Papadopoulos....

And here they all are!

(The guy no one knows is two seats to the left of Sessions.)

Hey anyone could just walk in off the street to those kind of meetings. And Sessions never knows who he is meeting with, see how many times he met with the Russian ambassador with out ever realizing it.